Take a close look at this passage from Lo et al from August, 2010, page 5/6, first paragraph, col.2. Recall that noted CFS clinician Anthony Komaroff was also part of this work:
"Testing of the repeat blood samples, ~15y after the index sample, showed that seven of eight patients examined had detectable MLV-gag sequences. Significant variations of MLV-like virus gag gene sequences amplified from the freshly obtained blood samples were identified as would be expected in retroviral infections, but not from contamination."
As you may recall, this study was held up last summer and forced to do additional testing after CDC's contradictory findings at about the same time. Doing these retrospective tests on old samples from Dr. Komaroff's practice may have been one of these additional protocols. (BTW, Lo is talking about a different kind of direct contamination than was discussed at the CROI last week.) But note that Lo/Alter took samples from Dr. Anthony Komaroff's patient sample stores from 15 years ago. 7/8 tested positive for MLVs. This would place the timeline of the CFS patients' infection at the early-to-mid 1990s, well before when the supposed recombination contamination of a prostate cell research line took place, as is the theory presented at CROI.
Though some scientists still say that Lo's MLVs are not closely enough related to XMRV, I have read previously (I don't remember where) that, unofficially, Dr. Mikovits has found XMRV in some of Lo's/Komoroff's old samples.
If WPI and Lo's group can close the loop on MLVs vs. XMRV, the timing of these 15 year old samples would seem to strongly contradict the CROI contamination theory. Furthermore, if WPI would publish its findings of XMRV in Lo's/Komoroff's old patient samples, this would further dent the new contamination bandwagon.
Stephen
"Testing of the repeat blood samples, ~15y after the index sample, showed that seven of eight patients examined had detectable MLV-gag sequences. Significant variations of MLV-like virus gag gene sequences amplified from the freshly obtained blood samples were identified as would be expected in retroviral infections, but not from contamination."
As you may recall, this study was held up last summer and forced to do additional testing after CDC's contradictory findings at about the same time. Doing these retrospective tests on old samples from Dr. Komaroff's practice may have been one of these additional protocols. (BTW, Lo is talking about a different kind of direct contamination than was discussed at the CROI last week.) But note that Lo/Alter took samples from Dr. Anthony Komaroff's patient sample stores from 15 years ago. 7/8 tested positive for MLVs. This would place the timeline of the CFS patients' infection at the early-to-mid 1990s, well before when the supposed recombination contamination of a prostate cell research line took place, as is the theory presented at CROI.
Though some scientists still say that Lo's MLVs are not closely enough related to XMRV, I have read previously (I don't remember where) that, unofficially, Dr. Mikovits has found XMRV in some of Lo's/Komoroff's old samples.
If WPI and Lo's group can close the loop on MLVs vs. XMRV, the timing of these 15 year old samples would seem to strongly contradict the CROI contamination theory. Furthermore, if WPI would publish its findings of XMRV in Lo's/Komoroff's old patient samples, this would further dent the new contamination bandwagon.
Stephen
